Arvel, thanks for your comments. This improves readability significantly, and I'd like to incorporate it in its entirety. Any objections?
-Jim Arvel Hathcock wrote: > Some minor suggestions: > > 1. Introduction > > Second and third paragraph potential rewrite: > > "However, the legacy of the Internet is such that not all messages > will be signed. Therefore, the absence of a signature is not an a > priori indication of forgery. In fact, during early phases of DKIM > deployment it must be expected that most messages will remain > unsigned. Nevertheless, some domains may find it highly desirable to > advertise that they sign all their mail making the absence of a valid > signature a potential indication of forgery. Without a mechanism to > do so the benefits of DKIM are limited to cases in which a valid > signature exists and can not be extended to cases in which signatures > are missing or are invalid. Defining such a mechanism is the purpose > of Sender Signing Practices." > > "In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From" > address [RFC2822], message verifiers implementing this specification > MUST determine whether messages from that address are expected to be > signed and what signatures are acceptable. This determination is > referred to as a Sender Signing Practices check." > > > Fourth paragraph, start of first sentence: "Conceivably, Sender > Signing Practices could be extended in the future..." > > (more coming) > > Arvel > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
